Is an “anti-aging pill” possible?

Posted 18 April 2011

A principle in scientific research and science writing is to always go back to the primary source documents as far as possible. Ideally one would want to be able to double-check actual data from studies — but most of the time we have to be content with the published versions of the research. Here’s an example of how not going back to the original publication, and relying on a secondary source (a university newspaper) led to a mistake which has then been used in making false claims for a product.

Solal have been marketing an “anti-aging pill” which they claim/infer, among other, can slow down human ageing and extend the human lifespan.

Their website — which is no longer accessible since this blog was first published  (http://www.solaltech.com/antiaging.htm)  showed the graphic above which asks “Is an anti-aging pill possible?” Text that implies this is factual is produced below the graphic followed in small print with a series of references that look at face value to be very credible. (Solal still markets this product here)

Believe this so far?

In large print, Professor David Sinclair, “Resveratrol researcher, Harvard Medical School”, is quoted as stating: “Resveratrol extends the life of every species it’s given to. We’re 50 years ahead of where I thought we would be 10 years ago.” 

The references which are not easy to read are provided below as they appear in the graphic. These references (except 11 which is a book) were obtained and analysed to see if they were used in context and to verify the claims made in the graphic on the website. 

1. Journal of nutrition 2002 Feb;132(2):257-60.  

2.Hall SS.: Longevity research. In vino vitalis? Compounds activate life-extending genes.: Science 2003 Aug 29;301(5637):1165 

3.Cromie, WJ; Protein extends life; Harvard University Gazette; 2004 July; II 

4.Shi J, Yu J, Pohorty JE, Kakuda Y.; Polyphenolics in grape seeds – biochemistry and functionality; Journal of Medicinal Food. 2003 Winter;6(4):291-9. Review. 

5.Delmas D, Jannin B, Latruffe N.; Resveratrol: preventing properties against vascular alterations and ageing.: Mol Nutr Food Res. 2005 May;49(5):377-95. 

6.Journal of Hypertension 2000 Dec;18[12]:1833-40. 

7.International Immunopharmacology 2005 May;5(5):849-56 

8.Ann NY Academy Sciences 2003 May;993:276-86. 

9.de la Lastra CA, Villegas I.; Resveratrol as an anti-inflammatory and anti-aging agent: mechanisms and clinical implications.; Mol Nutr Food Res. 2005 May;49(5):405-30. 

10.International Cancer Journal. 2005 June 10;115(2):196-201. 

11.Clouatre, Dallas. All about grape seed extract, Avery Publishing Group. Garden City Park, New York, USA. 1998:56

The text continues: “In June 2004, researchers at Harvard Medical School discovered that a safe protein molecule known as Resveratrol, extracted from (grape) vine leaves, activates a gene which slows down the rate at which cells age and can extend the lifespan of human cells by 14-23%.” (I added the underlining)

Each of these three underlined words or phrases is associated with the references above. The first, a 2002 reference [1] (published a whole two years before the Harvard researchers made their “discovery”!) tells us that resveratrol is not harmful when given to rats for 28 days. This clearly does not necessarily mean resveratrol (or this product) is safe for humans.

The second, a 2003 reference [2] (a whole year before the Harvard researchers made their “discovery”) does describe the activation of a gene which affects cellular aging — but these are yeast cells. The article also mentions that “some protection to cultured human cells exposed to radiation” is offered by several naturally occurring small molecules. Although “Science” is a reputable journal — this information comes from an unreferenced “news of the week” report! One cannot extrapolate from yeast cells or damaged cultured human cells in a laboratory to actual real living human beings.

The third reference comes from the Harvard University Gazette in 2004 [3]. This is a university newspaper — not a peer-reviewed journal — and it does not state that resveratrol can extend the life of human cells by 14-23%. The statement seems to be a complete fabrication. If you read the original research published as a letter co-authored by Professor Sinclair in the highly prestigious journal “Nature”, you will discover that the research was not done in human cells but in worms and fruit flies. The worms’ lifespan was extended by 14%, whereas the fruit flies’ lifespan was extended by 29% on resveratrol, not 23%! The fruit flies’ lifespan was extended by 23% with “fisetin” — another compound that was being tested at the same time. So the Harvard Gazette writer’s mistake seems to have been simply echoed by Solal, but with the little “addition” of extending the lifespan of “human cells.” Oops!

The label for the “Anti-Aging Pill” is still accessible on the Solal website at: http://www.solaltech.com/products/nutriceuticals/anti_aging_pill/ANTI%20AGING%20PILL.swf . On it is a repeat of the erroneous statement that

“[i]n 2002, Harvard University Medical School showed that resveratrol extends the life-span of human cells by up to 23%.”

NOT ONLY WAS THIS RESEARCH NOT IN 2002, IT WAS NOT IN HUMAN CELLS BUT IN FRUIT FLIES, AND IT WAS NOT RESVERATROL BUT FISETIN. (Oops, oops, oops)

The label for the Resveratrol Extra Strength refers to : “Nobel prize winning research into Resveratrol has proven that it is one of the most important anti-aging and disease preventive nutrients recently discovered” [Comment — but not in humans!] and “[I]n 2002, Harvard Medical School showed than (sic) Resveratrol has life-extension potential, by slowing down the rate at which DNA ages.”  http://www.solaltech.com/newonepagers/RESVERATROL%20-EXTRA_STRENGTH.swf . Several other unproven claims for resveratrol are also made on the label.

Apologies for any repetition in the next sections. It makes similar points for both these products in different ways.

1. Has Solal ever conducted any studies on these formulations?

NO, there is no evidence that Solal has conducted even a single study in humans to confirm whether these combinations have any effectiveness or whether they are safe. (Yes, you the consumer are the unwitting guinea pig which is a contravention of the Constitution of South Africa!)

2. Does the evidence show that resveratrol can really extend the lifespan of human cells by 14-23%?

No, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, and in fact, misquotes the Harvard study. The 14% refers to worms not human cells and the 23% refers to fruit flies (receiving fisetin not resveratrol), not human cells. The misinformation seems to have come from a mistake in the university newspaper about the findings but then somehow applying it to human cells. See above and point B. a. below for more details.

3. Is there sufficient evidence to back up the other claims being made for these products?

No, similar to point 2 above, the evidence is mostly derived from cells in lab dishes and/or rat studies. Some clinical studies have been conducted on Grape seed extract (on its own) for specific conditions which do not include the anti-aging claims. See specific details above.

4. Has Solal accurately conveyed Professor David Sinclair’s most recent point of view?

No, Professor David Sinclair statement has not even been quoted ‘correctly’ – it is out of context are therefore inappropriate and incorrect! See point B. b. below.

5. Has the safety of this product been tested on humans?

No, this has been “guessed”. There is no evidence that the individual ingredients or this mixture have ever been tested in short or long term studies on humans. Furthermore, one does not know for sure whether the ingredients would be synergistic (enhance each other) or would be antagonistic (oppose each other). See point B. c. below

6. Is there evidence that these products may be unsafe for human consumption?

Yes, Although no studies have been conducted in humans, in animal models resveratrol has been shown to have a dual action – at one dose it may have efficacy and be safe, at another dose it promotes cancer. (This is sometimes called the hormetic dose response.) Of course this may only be relevant in animal models, but these models warn that the same may apply to humans. What are the equivalent doses in humans? We don’t know, and certainly Solal doesn’t know! It could be the doses that these products contain – but there is no proof from human studies that they are.

7. Does a patent signify that the product has efficacy?

No, proof that the product works is not required before a patent is obtained (and as it is “pending” it has in this case not even been been granted yet). It is interesting that the information provided on the webpage about the patent pending product — the Anti-Aging Pill is so blatantly erroneous.

No. To date all the evidence is derived from studying cells in dishes in the laboratory, or from worm, fruit fly, rat or other animal studies. No conclusive human studies have been published.

Solal quoted Professor David Sinclair: “Resveratrol extends the life of every species it’s given to. We’re 50 years ahead of where I thought we would be 10 years ago”

Solal also quoted: “In June 2004, researchers at Harvard Medical School . . . showed how . . . in experimental models on yeasts, fruit flies and human cells resveratrol increased lifespan by 14-23% ” (NB: The research quoted was done on worms (14%) and fruit flies (23%)). The original research did not use human cells at all!

A simple Google search leads one to the source of these statements, The Harvard University Gazette which states: “This year, he [Sinclair] fed a closely related protein to tiny worms and fruit flies. The worms lived as much as 14 percent longer, the flies as much as 23 percent. If it works in humans, that would extend our roughly 83-year lives to about 95 or 102”, and, “[w]e have something that extends the life of every species it’s given to,” Sinclair enthuses. “We’re 50 years ahead of where I thought we would be 10 years ago.” But the article goes on to say “The protein works on human cells growing in a test tube, but will it work on baby boomers trying to live the good life longer? ‘It’s pure speculation at this point, but we now have the first molecule that extends life in species, from fungi to flies’ [he said]” (Emphasis added) How come his point about speculation wasn’t quoted?
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/07.22/14-yeast.html

But as already pointed out, even the Harvard University Gazette got it wrong! The fruit flies lived 23% longer when given “fisetin” not resveratrol. The resveratrol fed fruit flies lived 29% longer. This shows how important it is to access the original published research and not just a news report (even that of a reputable university). 

It would seem that Solal most likely did not access the original article in the journal Nature about the effects of resveratrol on worms and fruit flies respectively and ended up quoting the incorrect figures for fruit flies. Not that this really makes a difference to whether or not it has an effect in humans — that is still undetermined, despite Solal’s claims.

The real concern is that once again Solal have made a mistake in its interpretation of scientific data. See also the article on this website on distorting evidence.

Solal’s most recent evidence on their website is from 2005. In 2011, that’s 6 years ago — a long time in scientific circles.

More recent reviews published in credible medical journals point out that we are no closer to this answer: 

Although Professor David Sinclair first statement may have been quoted correctly, the rest of the claims are out of context, extrapolated from theory or animal models and are therefore incorrect.

A full two years after Professor David Sinclair’s “quote” in Solal’s advert, Prof. Sinclair himself and Prof AL Komaroff, another world authority on resveratrol, wrote in a Newsweek article (“Can we slow aging?” 2006 Dec 11;148(24):80, 82, 84), the following: 

Clearly even Professor Sinclair himself does not endorse the use of resveratrol in humans. 

There is no proof that this product is safe:

Comment: This is also not based on human data, but is an advance on the information provided by Solal.

CONCLUSION: Is an anti-aging pill possible? Maybe. Do Solal’s “Anti-Aging Pill” and “Resveratrol Extra Strength with Grape Seed Extract” have anti-aging effects in humans? No. There is no evidence that they have any anti-aging effects. In fact the evidence provided by Solal is quite insufficient and inappropriate to ensure that taking these products will add years to your life or that the quality of your life and health as you age, will be improved. There’s also no evidence that these products will help to prevent any of the debilitating diseases that develop with age. But to crown it all, the interpretation of the evidence provided is faulty, and as already shown — a part of it may even be fabricated. In fact, I can say with certainty that in taking these products, not only will you continue to get older, but you will also be poorer.

Update!: http://www.camcheck.co.za/anti-aging-pill-ii/